Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:V. AFD is not a vote, and the vast majority of keep arguments give no reasons why the article should be kept, and the ones that are more than just "keep" either admit or do not address the lack of reliable sources. The one reference provided does not give a name for the weapon in the picture. --Core desat 08:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srbosjek[edit]

File:Srbo-sjek.jpg

Yet more evidence. --Svetislav Jovanović 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I translate the Articel to the german Wikipedia. But there it will be delete because there are no references and they think it is a not true. So i think if in the english wikipedia is no referenc too it should be deletet because it can be a lie. Schlauischlumpf 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most information about "Srbosjek" seems to have originated from the english wikipedia site itself, and then spread out into various other wikipedias and lexica. Besides various serbo-crioatian discussion forums, there seems to be no genuine and especially no neutral information on this. -- Rhun 19:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there don't appear any sources, and such myths (if it is a myth) do a disservice to the victims, by allowing deniers to characterise the hundreds of thousands of deaths and the genocide in the same way.--Hadžija 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wartime atrocity stories must have reliable and verifiable sources. Many countries have denounced their enemies as brutes, sadists, pirates, cutthroats war criminals and baby eaters. Edison 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed most of the dubious material in an earlier cleanup of the article. But I did have doubts about the source, but wasn't sure whether the source constituted a reliable source for such an article. iruka 05:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - because my grandfather was killed by a Srbosjek. It does exist, and not everything is on the internet, you know. --Svetislav Jovanović 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I found two articels about the "srbosjek" where it is called "graviso", here and here. It is also explained in the german magazin Der Spiegel on page 117 in the magazin from the 1. Febuary 1988. --Schlauischlumpf 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found also a Picture on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. --Schlauischlumpf 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also found another picture, see this Jasenovac photo archive, specifically the last image. It seems based on the illustration, that "Graviso" or "Grawiso" is written on the strap. // Laughing Man 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation, there is a mention on an English language forum ([1]) that says that the Hitler-Jugend used a knife called the "Grawiso" so that might be another direction to take the search to find better sources about this knife. // Laughing Man 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThat picture on the holocaust memorial museum is sourced from Yugoslavia, one of the combantants with the state of Croatia of that time which brings into question it's reliability. Is there any mention of it from the official Jasenovac camp museum - I had a look @ the website[2] & couldn't find any mention of the Srbosjek. It would be strange if the museum, the alleged site where the weapon was used had no mention of it. iruka 12:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Information about this knife could come only from Yugoslavia. Please don’t forget that Croatia was integral part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later after the World War Two Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. Croatia was never in war with Yugoslavia since later didn’t existed during occupation by Axis powers. Do we have to presume that the Jasenovac camp museum is only museum in the world that has reliable information about what happened in this concentration camp during World War Two? During war between ex Yugoslav states, Croatia went trough revival of Ustashi ideology which in many ways affected the comprehension of history of NDH and its crimes. I don’t believe that any museum in Croatia could be objective about Jasenovac and its significance. What I don’t understand is why facts presented on United States Holocaust Memorial Museum official website aren’t good enough to be used on Wikipedia. Do we have to presume that this museum couldn’t preserve objectivity or even that is spread false information about Holocaust. Is their criteria lower then the criteria of Wikipedia? I don’t think so. --Marko M 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue isn't whether United States Holocaust Memorial Museum official website is good enough - they would have accepted the information from the communist Yugoslav state in good faith. It's whether the original "Yugoslav" source is untainted.

Croatia was in conflict with Yugoslavia 3 times:

the first Yugoslavia was littered with ethnic conflict between the Croats & the Yugoslav security structures dominated by Serbs, prompting protests about the Croats plight @ the League of Nations by intellectuals like Albert Eienstein. This continued until the formation of the Banovina of Croatia;
In WW2, the NDH security structures fought the remnants of the Yugoslav military (Serb Chetniks) as well as the communist dominated Partisans - the Partisans went on to form the second Yugoslavia. It was in their interest to portray their military & idealogical enemies in the worst possible light, with the aim of increasing the size war reparations, but also to legitimize the Communist governments' role in saving the peoples of Yugoslavia from the horrors of nationalism. So various myths were invented, such as [3]. Hence the need for a multitude of reliable sources;

Your choice of words shows your (1) reliance on propaganda and (2) lack of knowledge on the issue. (1) Referring to your reliance on propaganda, the fact that you called the Serbs 'Chetniks' yet failed to refer to the Croat forces as Nazis (which is precisely what they were, do not even attempt to argue against this) is strong proof of your desire to portray the Serbs in a negative light, while leaving out a very negative fact about the Croat forces of the time. Also, using famous people to support your argument shows weakness, and once again, the usage of a propaganda tool. Also, referring to the horrors of 'NAZISM' as the horrors of 'nationalism' is a big no-no. The military of Yugoslavia was trying to save its people from Nazism (torture/death-no this is not propaganda, it is a fact), not nationalism. (2) Secondly, the fact that when referring to the Yugoslav military, you mention the Cetniks as being the dominant part of it, and then say 'as well as the... Partisans', shows your lack of knowledge. My friend, the Cetniks formed the ROYAL Yugoslav army, while the Partisans the Communist Yugoslav army. They were never part of a single 'Yugoslav military' as you have phrased it (and hated each other, as I'm sure you must be aware of). If you were aware of this significant fact, you have proven your lack of attention to detail and the importance of phrasing oneself correctly. Therefore, please cease to include such irrelevant arguments, which make you look bad due to your use of propaganda (wording) and your disregard for detail/correct information. This long reply was necessary, to set you straight, as you could better contribute to Wikipedia, and to let others know where certain faults in your reasoning might lie. Take this as a friendly pointer. :) Stop The Lies 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Ahh, yeah? Assuming you are not trolling, let me address your concerns:

Your choice of words shows your (1) reliance on propaganda and (2) lack of knowledge on the issue. (1) Referring to your reliance on propaganda, the fact that you called the Serbs 'Chetniks' yet failed to refer to the Croat forces as Nazis (which is precisely what they were, do not even attempt to argue against this) is strong proof of your desire to portray the Serbs in a negative light, while leaving out a very negative fact about the Croat forces of the time.

Who said anything about Chetniks being a negative connotation?;
Dominant portion of the military of the first Yugoslavia became Chetnik formations after the country's dissolution - this is what the units called themselves [4]. The denotion "Serb" was to distinguish it from the multinational Partisans;
NDH security structures included the fascist Ustasha militia, whilst the majority were the non-political Home Gaurd that was the successor to the Imperial Croatian Home Guard. Hence one cannot use sweeping generalisations to describe a mixed forces;
NDH security structures fought against both Chetniks & Partisans, hence, they fought against two Yugoslavias, the forces of the then defunct 1st Yugoslavia, and forces that envisaged a second communist Yugoslavia. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, using famous people to support your argument shows weakness, and once again, the usage of a propaganda tool. Also, referring to the horrors of 'NAZISM' as the horrors of 'nationalism' is a big no-no. The military of Yugoslavia was trying to save its people from Nazism (torture/death-no this is not propaganda, it is a fact), not nationalism.

Not propaganda; fact, precipated by the murder of Croat intellectual Milan Sufflay - refer New York Times article about the death of Šufflay & Einstein/Mann appeal. It's relevance was to provide evidence of conflict b/w Croats & Yugoslav forces which in turn goes to the point of reliability of "Yugoslav" (a.k.a Serb) sources. Quoting a "famous person" as you put it, means that the source can be found more easily;
The Communist leadership was concerned about nationalism - you may want to read some of the marxist literature. The federal nature of second Yugoslavia was to reassure the smaller communities that the Greater Serbia hegemony of the first Yugoslavia would not be repeated, as well as a first step of overcoming the nationalist opiate that had hindered the workers struggle for freedom. I'm sure you get the picture. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Secondly, the fact that when referring to the Yugoslav military, you mention the Cetniks as being the dominant part of it, and then say 'as well as the... Partisans', shows your lack of knowledge. My friend, the Cetniks formed the ROYAL Yugoslav army, while the Partisans the Communist Yugoslav army. They were never part of a single 'Yugoslav military' as you have phrased it (and hated each other, as I'm sure you must be aware of).

Pls reread what I wrote:

In WW2, the NDH security structures fought the remnants of the Yugoslav military (Serb Chetniks) as well as the communist dominated Partisans - the Partisans went on to form the second Yugoslavia.

How does this imply they were one force? I would have thought the "as well as" was a denotion of separate forces as well as explicitly mentioning that the Partisans were communist. Note, I had also included an interwiki link for those that wanted more information on the chetnik movement. Note also the recognition that the two forces represented the disparate 1st & 2nd Yugoslavias. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were aware of this significant fact, you have proven your lack of attention to detail and the importance of phrasing oneself correctly. Therefore, please cease to include such irrelevant arguments, which make you look bad due to your use of propaganda (wording) and your disregard for detail/correct information. This long reply was necessary, to set you straight, as you could better contribute to Wikipedia, and to let others know where certain faults in your reasoning might lie. Take this as a friendly pointer. :) Stop The Lies 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Don't know how to interpret the long reply that resembles a character assasination job, full of strawmen, and in response to a tangential point. The key point:

The issue isn't whether United States Holocaust Memorial Museum official website is good enough - they would have accepted the information from the communist Yugoslav state in good faith. It's whether the original "Yugoslav" source is untainted.

still stands & was unaddressed in your long reply. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not addressing that fact, I was addressing your faulty arguments, which still stands. Sorry. But to address that claim, there is no argument against the existance of the knife, what it looked like, what it was used for, who it was used against, that there was a competition involving the knife, etc. So since there is no argument regarding these claims, and only an argument regarding its name, why don't you make yourself more useful, and provide an appropriate name for the knife? Thanks for all your help. :) Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

But there are arguments against the existence of the knife - namely:

there were a number of myths propagated by Yugoslavia in order to delegitimise the cause of Croatian independence, the biggest threat to the states existance. Examples of such myths include [5], [6], & [7];
the main independent source, the holocaust museum sourced it's information from Yugoslavia: courtesy of Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije - "Peoples Revolution of Yugoslavia Museum";
the source article talked about a competition with a butcher knife - something that was at odds with what is described on the wikipedia article. iruka 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the 1990's.

Croatia did not have a resurgence of Ustasha ideology during the war b/w ex-Yugoslav states, as claimed above. What they did have was opening up of the communist archives so that historians could have access to documents untainted by the communist party presure. iruka

Keep Ugly but true --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krytan 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Djus 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep!!! --Kaster 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Banovic 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some things which sometimes lack some more information. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep!!! --Medule 22:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on people, if we have article about Bowie knife (without any references) we certainly should have an article about Srbosjek. Existence of this gruesome tool is well known to the people from ex Yugoslavia. With few more sources this should be a fine article. --Marko M 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noone is making claims that hundreds of people were killed with the Bowie knife. And the srbosjek is not known beyond the Serbian realm. Also, that the article stems from the former Yugoslavia where distortion and propaganda & a recent war occured, means a multitude of reliable sources (not self-referencing) are needed. These standards are required to maintain the quality of wikipedia. iruka 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Srbosjek" is also good known in the croatian realm, although no one really know what it is, but the word itself is know good enough, so I suppose neither the serbs know what this word _exactly_ describes, and if the knife on this picture _is_ really it, and if the knife was used _under this name_ in the concentraation camps, as the article suggests, i.e if the contents this article should be kept under this name. As of now, despite the many "Keeps", the connection between the actual article title, the existing word "Srbosjek" and its content (especially the pictures), has not been verified to put it into a internationally accessible encyclopedia as a verified fact when no one can verify it. -- Rhun 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Knowing history of USA I could claim with certainty that thousands of people were killed with Bowie knife. Of course, I need reliable source to verify this claim despite the fact that it’s historically correct. Problem with administration on most Wikipedias including this one is that administrators just won’t go further to resolve problem like this. True administrator would already be contacting United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. and starting enquiry about origins of photograph representing Srbosjek. What ever the outcome of this enquiry would be, it would surly benefit Wikipedia by confirming the content of this article or by denying it. The later outcome could lead to correction of information on the official site of US Holocaust Memorial Museum which would raise the reputation of Wikipedia. But who am I to teach you how to do your job. I’ll wait and see the outcome of this vote and do what ever I can to find sources that would satisfy your criteria. --Marko M 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following claim:

Knowing history of USA I could claim with certainty that thousands of people were killed with Bowie knife.

is almost impossible to verify. To be analogous to the article, the claim would have to say that thousands of people were killed in one small location in the US? Propaganda relies on half-truths, unstructured anecdotal experiences & unverifiable claims. iruka 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Velimir85 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep!!! --Milan Dinic 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sasa Stefanovic • 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep As long as we can find some irrefutable sources for this article, and keep it as NPOV as possible. Also agree with Hadžija about the holocaust denial part. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 05:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we have collected as of now show that this depicted curved knife existed and was used by the Ustasha, but not that exactly this knife was named "Srbosjek" (all the sources mention a "graviso" type of knife), and that this word was coined there and not later and not used colloquialy for any type of knife, like for example here in the 90s bosnian war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhun (talk • contribs)

SOURCES>>>

http://www.jasenovac.org/

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/jasenovac/

1. The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Vladimir Dedijer (Editor), Harvey Kendall (Translator) Prometheus Books, 1992.

2. Witness to Jasenovac's Hell Ilija Ivanovic, Wanda Schindley (Editor), Aleksandra Lazic (Translator) Dallas Publishing, 2002

3. Crimes in the Jasenovac Camp, State Commission investigation of crimes of the occupiers and their collaborators in Croatia, Zagreb, 1946.

4. Ustasha Camps by Mirko Percen, Globus, Zagreb, 1966. Second expanded printing 1990.

5. Ustashi and the Independent State of Croatia 1941-1945, by Fikreta Jelic-Butic, Liber, Zagreb, 1977.

6. Romans, J. Jews of Yugoslavia, 1941- 1945: Victims of Genocide and Freedom Fighters, Belgrade, 1982

7. Antisemitism in the anti-fascist Holocaust: a collection of works, The Jewish Center, Zagreb, 1996.

8. The Jasenovac Concentration Camp, by Antun Miletic, Volumes One and Two, Belgrade, 1986. Volume Three, Belgrade, 1987. Second edition, 1993.

9. Hell's Torture Chamber by Djordje Milica, Zagreb, 1945.

Anyone got those books to find the exact page numbers where srbosjek is mentioned? These books are used as sources for a site talking about srbosjek so they do include references, but we need page numbers. Stop The Lies 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Comment Trace back to the original sources that these books cite - I think you'll find it stems from the same tainted Yugoslav government of the time. Citing references that self-reference each other is unreliable. iruka 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are claiming that you own each of these books and have checked every single reference used in them? Either that, or you claim that a reliable source referring to a srbosjek does not exist, anywhere. Both of these claims, are simply absurd (since I strongly doubt you own each of these books, if any, and also, you cannot possibly have come across all of the sources in existance referring to the srbosjek), and therefore, I suggest you refrain from making such illogical claims. Thank you. :) Stop The Lies 05:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Let me spell it out for you:

If a number of different sources cross-reference each other, but are traced to the same origin i.e. one of the parties to the conflict, then thats a POV issue;

Yep :) Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

I have checked the Holocaust museum reference, & it is sourced from Yugoslavia - a combatant against the Croat state of the time;

Yes, Yugoslavia did fight the Nazi puppet state of Croatia. Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies And prior to that the democratically elected government & people of Croatia in the first Yugoslavia, and after that again in the 1990's as the second Yugoslavia fell apart. iruka 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of NPOV, the sources of these other sources need to be traced back b/c if it comes from the same source, because it is well known technique of the then Yugoslav secretpolice to disseminate propaganda, and then through a process of constant re-referencing & re-quoting, it becomes legitimised by repetition - the if you say it ofetn enough then it's true phenomenon. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more sources are needed for the usage/purpose/appearance etc. of the tool, only for the name. If you could provide some, that would be great. Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Non-Yugoslav sources (that do not in turn reference Yugoslav sources) are needed to corroborate the Yugoslav sources. This is because, as it has been pointed out, one side in a conflict will tend to portray the other side as bestial. iruka

Keep --Djordjes (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First reason for lack of sources: most of the people that know about the tool were killed by it... Second reason for lack of 'irrefutable sources': Serbs are largely considered an unreliable source by the rest of the world... Stop The Lies 09:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

You are voting for "keep" and at the same time acknowledging the lack of sources?? How does that work? Its not that the "Serbs" are a not reliable source, its the fact that we as of now dont have any third party aknowledging the authenticity of this word "Srbosjek" like we have for the genocide in Jasenovac. The Serbs and Croatians were engaged in a war and decades of mutual nationalistic hatred, and there was a _LOT_ of propaganda going on between them, so without third party review of the information (like for example, the books you cited) you just cant take it as a "proven fact" for an international encyclopedia. So how can you vote to "Keep" an article called "Srbosjek" when neither of your two pages mentioned above actually mentiones the word at all? I think its pretty clear what was happening at Jasenovac, and who was Petar Brzica, but evidence is also needed for the word and article title itself. When the references only mention that the Jasenovac-knife was named "graviso", why should the article stay as "Srbosjek"? Thats the missing part. Linking more and more sites dealing with the atrocitiese at Jasenovac is useless, when they dont identify the knife as "Srbosjek". Thanks, -- Rhun 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say sources don't exist. I said there is a 'lack' of sources, also known as an 'insufficient' amount, aka: NOT ENOUGH, not 'not any at all'. And to add to that, most people believe there is a lack of sources because the sources are 'Yugoslavian' or 'Serbian' and therefore, considered unreliable (you yourself are an example of this, as you claim that two sources -serbian and croat- are unreliable and not sufficient, when we all know if the American gov't issued a statement, it would be accepted as truth almost immediately). The word need not be mentioned, when the picture, which is clearly identified by two entire peoples as the 'srbosjek' is included in the source. In addition, I have come across the term (along with a photo reference) in books, which I unfortunately do not have in my possession any longer so I cannot provide their names or find the page numbers to provide an exact reference, therefore, the references DO exist out there, there is no doubt about it. This is why I vote for keep. Please read more carefully, thanks :) Stop The Lies 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

It is common practice with two war parties accusing each other of wartime atrocities to exaggregate the opponent's crimes and to hush up the own ones. The US itself does this all the time (genie weapons of mass destruction, kuwait babies torn from their incubators, concentration camps in kosovo, and so on), so I would take any of the news issued from the white house regarding someone theyre preparing a war on with a grain of salt. The same way I wouldnt trust any serbian or croatian accusing the opponent of some atrocity without _anybody_ neutral to this conflict verifying this. Example Jasenovac: the estimations on the number of victims go from 50.000 (croatian number) up to 600.000 (serbian number). Its fairly likely that the truth lies there in between, and that both sides try to fake the numbers in their "favor" still today and therefore are not to be trusted. So I acknowledge third party (like the USHMM) pictures of the knife, and a description of its usage as reliable, but wouldnt take the serbian-only sources as facts, when in this 60 years since the WW2 _NOBODY_ not even the jewish holocaust organisations cared to verify those sources. Thankfully, as you see, we have now gathered almost complete information about the knife, its usage, Brzica, but still lack _verification_ of the name. Its not enough having _one_ war party accusing the other side of war crimes, and writing books about it, you also need a third, neutral and unbiased party verifying those. Its a basic scientific principle. Hypothesis leading to third party verification. So it would be nice having someone verify that this glove knife was actually called srbosjek there in Jasenovac, and that it isnt a common croat or serb word made up earlier or later and used for any type of knife, so having "entire two people" claiming they reckognize it from somwhere, but not being able to back it up, is, like you said, not enough. Greetings, -- Rhun 06:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I am glad all this information has been found, thank you for all of your help. Now the article can be saved. There is no basis for a deletion of an entire article due to a dispute over its name. Many articles have their names disputed, but it would be absurd to delete them entirely for that reason. Therefore, the article can only result in keep. So, it appears there is a dispute regarding the name of the knife, but not its usage. Its usage was clear: to cut Serbs. Therefore, if 'Srbosjek' is a disputed term, perhaps some names for the article might be 'Ustasa Knife', 'WWII Ustasa Knife', 'Knife-formerly-known-as-srbosjek", OR we can simply call it 'The WWII Knife used to Cut Serbs' (referring to its use), in which case, we might as well call it 'Serb-cutter', or better yet, stick with the original, 'Srbosjek'. Anyone have any ideas for names, which I have not mentioned? Stop The Lies 08:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Given the gulf b/w what the sources say & what was written, then deletion of the article seems warranted. Also scrutiny of any purported sources is required since the srbosjek has the hall marks of propaganda, and given the sources to date come from a opposing side in a war. I can't help but notice that most comments on here claim the Srbosjek as a reality by virtue of anecdotal or faith factors, but very few reliable sources have been provided. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"hall marks of propaganda"??? The only way you can claim that the srbosjek has ONE "hallmark" of propaganda is in its name. Which may or may not be true. We were not there when the Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies were killed at Jasenovac with the tool, so we cannot say if the term was coined AT THE TIME it was used, or later. Other than that, you have no argument. Please contribute to Wikipedia by providing what you think is an appropriate name for the tool, given the sources. Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

You mean Serbs, Jews, Gypsies & Croats who were killed at Jasenovac. There is no evidence of a specific knife designed for killing concentration camp inmates. It's on the propaganda radar b/c it is as ridiculous as if someone was to claim that Srebrenica's Muslim victims were killed by a specially designed gun called something obscure. And you would not doubt be going, but it's a gun. Likewise with this alleged knife - some victims were killed by a bullet, others by a knife, other yet again by a mallet, then others were worked to death or were allowed to starved and others hanged. Incidently, questioning the notion of the Srbosjek doesn't diminish the suffereing or existence the victims in those camps. iruka 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Rename to Ustaše knife - There is no doubt that this knife existed, and because of this the article most certainly should not be deleted -- source from United States Holocaust Museum is a reliable source to keep this article, and when a source is found to confirm the name Srbosjek, we can remove the {{fact}} from the text describing that the knife was refered to Srbosjek in Croatian / the article can be renamed again. // Laughing Man 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There IS doubt or there ISN'T doubt? Judging by what you said later "the article most certainly should not be deleted", I am guessing you meant, there 'isn't' doubt.

Yes that is what I meant -- I have corrected my post, thank you. // Laughing Man 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: User:Marinko (also known as 'iruka') I will do my best to refrain from answering your replies, consider this a reply to everything you have just said and will in the future. You almost blamed me for trolling, yet it is you who is trolling. You blamed me for ignoring your arguments in my replies, which I didn't, when it is you who ignores my arguments in your replies (again and again), and goes off on a tangent to argue something very irrelevant to this talk page. And it seems one of your MAIN arguments is that MYTHS WERE CREATED, THEREFORE THIS MUST BE A MYTH AS WELL... Great argument, my friend! Wait no.. not really, you're sounding a lot like Descartes (when he determined the only truth is he thinks therefore he exists). Also, something so simple, where you mentioned that during WWII Yugoslavia fought Croatia, I agreed with you 100%, but since I mentioned that Croatia was at the time a Nazi puppet state, this was obviously not to your liking, so you decided to add that Yugoslavia fought against Croatia at other times, when Croatia was not a Nazi state (which is arguable), when you had ALREADY MADE THAT CLAIM, and I did not argue it there! This shows a personal bias, and that your arguments should be read very cautiously by other users. Stop The Lies 21:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Delete never heard of such knife, the picture jasenovac.jpg is not an evidence. Quote real evidence, or delete. Don't like provocations. --MaNeMeBasat 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.